Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has recently indicated that he will ask Congress to approve another supplemental appropriations bill to fund the ongoing military operations in Iraq. The number is rumored to be somewhere in the $80 billion range; $80 billion.

If this request for emergency funds is anything like the last three passed in the Congress, we can expect two things: one, the President will once again refuse to explain precisely where this money will be spent; and, two,

congressional Republicans will meekly accede to the President's demands without asking for even the slightest degree of accountability from the White House in return.

We in Congress must do more than just rubber stamp the President's every last wish. We hold the power of the purse; and, accordingly, we must exercise our constitutional authority to hold the executive branch accountable. Up to now, the Congress has failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for the many mishaps and mistakes in Iraq; and, as a result, the Members of Congress, all 535 of us, are responsible for the nearly 1,500 American troops who have been needlessly killed in Iraq, not to mention the 11,000 Americans who have been forever wounded and the untold thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died in this war.

Before appropriating a single dollar for the Iraq war, more than we have already appropriated, Congress must demand that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld tell Congress exactly what they plan to do to address the growing crisis in Iraq. Demanding accountability from the Bush administration crosses over political lines because it is about more than just politics. It is about taking care of our men and women who are serving in Iraq, and it is about advancing policies that will secure America for the future.

Together, with 27 of my House colleagues, I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 35, an Iraq withdrawal plan, that has four components. President Bush needs to address, at the very least, each of these important components before Congress provides him any further funds for Iraq.

First, the President needs to begin the process of bringing our troops home. How can we possibly ask these brave men and women, who have selflessly answered the call of duty for their country, to continue to die for an unjust, unfair, and poorly planned military failure halfway across the world? These are the troops the administration assured us would be embraced as liberators, but who continue to be the focal point of anti-American extremism, leaving them like sitting ducks.

In fact, I believe the insurgency in Iraq is fueled primarily by our military presence. Ceasing the military operations will not be sufficient to defeat the insurgency, no way, but staying will continue to intensify it, and that is for certain.

Second, President Bush needs to develop and implement a plan for Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, but that responsibility needs to be fulfilled not by our military but by humanitarian groups and companies that will help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure; and all future investments must be made with the needs of Iraqis being paramount, not the United States Government contractors and other war profiteers.

Third, the President must convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, and the United Nations to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and national guard forces to ensure Iraq's security. With Iraq's security problems the most serious cause for concern in the country at the moment, an international peacekeeping force in place of the U.S. military would better serve Iraq's needs.

An international peacekeeping force, supported by Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations, would provide real legitimacy to a conflict that has flown in the face of international law from the very beginning.

Finally, the President must take all steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to control their internal affairs. The Iraqi people cannot truly control their own affairs until the U.S. military has ceded back authority to the Iraqi people. That is why it is essential for Iraq's police and national guard forces to manage Iraq's security, not the American military.

Madam Speaker, today I voted against H. Con. Res. 6, because I am disappointed with the Boy Scouts of America's exclusionary policies that prevent gay boys and teens from participating in scouting. While the Boy Scouts' positive work within our Nation's communities is notable, the message that the organization sends to gay youth by shutting them out diminishes its greater goals of teaching respect, personal honor, and service.

It is important to encourage and support all of our children and by excluding gay youth the Boy Scouts of America is preventing some young men from experiencing the positive benefits Scouting can offer.

Mr. Chairman, when we shut our doors to the world we shut the door of democracy. President Bush wants the United States to be a leader in promoting freedom around the world, but we fail at home when we deny freedoms to those who desire the American dream. H.R. 418 fails to reform our system. Instead, it weakens our democracy.

If you vote for this bill you are saying we don't care if you have been persecuted because of your religion or beaten because of your gender. Stay in your own country. You are not entitled to our freedoms.

If you vote for this legislation you are saying that the United States doesn't care about federal or state laws as long as it means being able to close our border. Who cares if building a wall on our border endangers our environment? Out of 2,000 plus miles along our border with Mexico, you are saying that finishing 3 miles of that fenced area in Southern California is so important that we should throw out the principles of our democracy and let one man have the power to waive any laws that he wants without any oversight. Are you sure that this is a democratic country?

Mr. Chairman, shutting out people around the world from our democracy and throwing away the ideals of freedom that we hold so dear is no to way to be an example for the world. We need immigration reform but this legislation is not the right answer. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, people around the world were greatly moved by the courage of millions of Iraqis who braved death to cast a ballot on January 30, Iraq's first democratic elections in over 50 years. The Iraqi elections, however, did not justify this destructive war, neither the lies used to sell it nor the incompetence with which it has been managed.

The elections will not bring back the 1,500 American soldiers who have been killed or heal the over-10,000 American troops who have been wounded, and they certainly cannot bring back the untold thousands of Iraqis who have lost their lives. These elections will not reimburse the American taxpayers nearly $200 billion spent over the last 3 years, and the elections will not stop the vicious insurgency that is terrorizing Iraqi communities.

But the elections do demonstrate that Iraqis are prepared to manage their own affairs. That is why I believe that now is the time to develop and implement a plan to bring our soldiers home and end the U.S. military presence in Iraq absolutely as soon as possible.

Together with 27 cosponsors, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 35, calling for a plan to end this military mishap. Earlier today I wrote to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, asking them to hold hearings on this matter.

The Bush administration spared no superlative in talking about the significance of the Iraqi elections. Such a momentous watershed event, however, would seem to demand a shift in our thinking about Iraq. But not for President Bush. He actually has become more emboldened by the election. He sees this as a mandate to keep our soldiers in Iraq as long as he wants. He and his surrogates are even engaging in provocative saber-rattling in the direction of Iran.

The Iraq elections did not vindicate the doctrine of preemptive war, and they do not undo all the death and destruction that has occurred as a result. They demonstrated that the Iraqis can and should take control of their own destinies. Leaving will not be sufficient to defeat the insurgency, but staying absolutely will intensify it.

What is fueling the insurgency and what gave rise to it in the first place is our continued military presence in Iraq. Our troops, whom the administration assured us would be embraced as liberators, are the focal point of anti-American extremism, making them sitting ducks.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating a cut-and-run strategy. It would be irresponsible for the United States to abandon the Iraqi people. What we must do is play a role in facilitating their transition to stable democracy. We ought to work with Iraq's elected officials, the United Nations and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force that will keep Iraq secure. Much of the money we are spending on this military campaign should be diverted to infrastructure projects that will improve Iraqis' lives, such as road construction, new schools, water processing plants and more.

Up to this point, Iraq's economic development has been scandalously mismanaged by the Bush administration, as billions of dollars appropriated by Congress have not actually been put to work on the ground. All future investments must be made with the needs of Iraqis being paramount, not the United States Government contractors and not other war profiteers.

Mr. Speaker, I believe a focus on developmental and humanitarian aid in Iraq would be a model for a radically new approach to national security. We need what I call SMART security, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism.

Instead of resorting to the military option and spending needlessly on weapons systems, the SMART security plan that I propose calls for building multilateral partnerships, partnerships that enable us to foil terrorists and stop weapons of mass destruction proliferation.

A SMART security plan would address the conditions that led to terrorism in the first place: poverty, hopelessness, despair. Instead of troops, we should send scientists, educators, urban planners and constitutional experts to the troubled regions of the world.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the United States to play the role of Iraq's ally and partner, not its occupier. It is time to give Iraq back to its own people. It is time to truly support our troops by beginning to bring them home. The first step is for the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on International Relations to hold hearings on this matter now.

The Iraqi elections, however, will never justify the destructive war, and

it will never stand up to the lies that we heard to sell it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday Iraq held democratic elections to nominate legislators to write Iraq's constitution, and I want to congratulate the courageous Iraqi people who voted in the election. My congressional district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, had an 89\1/2\ percent voter turnout in the United States the last election, 89\1/2\. Believe me, we know the importance that elections play in our democracy.

And now with Iraq's elections completed, we in the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as Iraq transitions towards democracy. In fact, Sunday's election gives the United States yet another opportunity to get back on course in Iraq. We can do this by supporting the Iraqi people, not through our military but through international cooperation to help rebuild Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure. There are four components to my plan on how to do this. H. Con. Res. 35, which is co-sponsored by over two dozen other Members of the House, this plan secures Iraq for the future. It ensures that America's role in Iraq gives Iraq back to the Iraqis and actually makes America safer.

First, we need to develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Second, we must develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. Third, we need to convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership and the international community to replace U.S. military forces in Iraq with an international peacekeeping force and Iraqi police and national guard forces. Finally, we need to take all steps to provide that the Iraqi people receive the opportunity they deserve to control their own internal affairs.

In conclusion, I wholeheartedly salute the Iraqi people for their courage in participating in last Sunday's elections. But if we are to succeed in Iraq, we must utilize this moment as a means to bring our troops home and a means to return power to the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, first I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for yielding me this time to speak, time to speak in opposition to H. Con. Res. 36.

Mr. Speaker, last November a Federal court said the Federal Government cannot take away a university's funding simply because the school refuses to exempt the U.S. military from its policy, meaning the university's policy, and that on-campus recruiters not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Today we are debating a resolution in support of the Solomon amendment. If this House of Representatives votes to support that resolution, we will be putting the Congress on record as supporting absolute senseless discrimination.

The resolution says it is about equal access for military recruiters at institutions of higher education. But, in reality, it is about allowing the military to avoid the consequences of discrimination, the same consequences that any other employer would have to face if it discriminated.

Many say, and you heard it today, that our national security requires the military to engage in this discrimination, but the facts just do not support it. The court said that the Government failed to produce, and I quote, ``a shred of evidence'' that the Solomon amendment helps military recruiting, and even suggested that the hostility that the amendment causes may hurt recruiting.

It was reported in last month that since 1998, the military has discharged 20 fluent Arabic speakers and six fluent Farsi speakers under its ``Don't ask, don't tell'' policy. These are students that the military claims to be desperate to recruit.

No, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is not about military recruiting or national security. Plain and simple, it is about punishing universities for exercising their first amendment right to oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians; and I encourage my colleagues, stand up for the Constitution, oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate the courageous Iraqi people who participated in last Sunday's election to nominate legislators to write Iraq's Constitution.

My congressional district gets it when it comes to the importance of elections to our democracy. In November's Presidential election, a record 89.5 percent of registered voters in Marin and Sonoma Counties turned out to vote.

The problem is that irresponsible behavior has been a guiding principle of the administration's behavior in leading the Nation to war in Iraq. This has been a dishonest war from the word go. The President said he had heard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet to date no weapons of mass destruction have been found. President Bush himself has officially called off the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

The Iraq invasion has made the Middle East a more violent and unstable

place, and it has made America less secure at home by creating a terrorist breeding ground in a country that was not a haven for terrorist organizations like al Qaeda before we invaded it. The sad irony is that after our Nation was attacked on 9/11 by al Qaeda, the Bush administration's response was to bomb and kill civilians in one of the few countries in the Middle East that was inhospitable to al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in an operation based purely on ideological reasons, reasons that caused the deaths of more than 1,400 Americans and untold thousands of Iraqis, not to mention well more than 10,000 American troops injured and very, very severely wounded.

So now that Iraq's elections are completed, we in the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as Iraq transitions toward democracy. In fact, Sunday's election in Iraq gives the United States yet another opportunity to get back on track in Iraq. We can do this by supporting the Iraqi people, not through our military but through international cooperation to help rebuild Iraq's economic and physical infrastructure. We owe this to the people of Iraq, people who are being killed by the thousands, and to our troops who are sitting ducks for terrorists.

Last week, I introduced H. Con. Res. 35 with 24 original cosponsors, legislation that will help secure Iraq for the future and ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. My plan for Iraq is part of a larger, smarter security strategy, which is a sensible multilateral, American response to terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies.

The withdrawal plan I have proposed includes four major components.

First, develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The soldiers who have died in Iraq leave behind grieving loved ones whose lives will never be the same because of the war in Iraq. The best way to support our troops is to remove them from harm's way.

Second, develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. The United States has a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made in Iraq, but that responsibility needs to be fulfilled not by our military but by humanitarian groups and companies that will help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, and not through no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel.

Third, convene an emergency meeting of leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and National Guard forces to ensure Iraq's security.

Iraq's security problems are still the most serious cause for concern in the country, and Iraq requires an international peacekeeping force to address this problem, not the United States military. A peacekeeping force supported by Iraq's neighbors and the global community will provide real legitimacy to a conflict that has flown in the face of international law from its very beginning.

Fourth, take all steps to provide the Iraqi people with opportunity to control their internal affairs. The Iraqi people cannot truly control their own affairs until the United States military has ceded back authority to the Iraqi people. That is why it is essential for Iraq's police and National Guard forces to manage Iraq's security, not the United States military.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We should not abandon Iraq. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable.

In the end, this is the smarter option and we must begin always taking the smarter path if we are to succeed in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kathleen Doyle of Petaluma, California, who is retiring from a long and illustrious career as a small business owner and community advocate. Kathleen and Maggie, her 13-year-old pet schnauzer, will soon be moving to a new home in Arlington, South Dakota to live closer to her immediate family.

A professional CPA, Kathleen leaves behind the accounting firm she established as well as many friends and associates who will miss her expertise, civic experience, and companionship. She has just completed a decade on the Santa Rosa Junior College Board of Trustees where she was relied upon for tracking the budget for other Board members.

An active participant in the fabric of Petaluma's civic life, Kathleen was a founding member of the Petaluma Woman's Club II and served on the Petaluma Chamber of Commerce Board (as President), the Sonoma County Civil Service Commission, the Petaluma Planning Commission, The Petaluma chapter of the Business and Professional Women's Club (as President), and the Petaluma Valley Hospital Foundation. She was also treasurer for the Woolsey For Congress campaign.

Kathleen's new home in a town of 900 will be near her two sisters and their families. She also plans to spend time traveling, perhaps to escape the below-zero temperatures of the Arlington winters.

Mr. Speaker, Kathleen Doyle has been an inspiration to many in the Petaluma community. It is hard to imagine the city without her. However, we know that Petaluma's loss will be Arlington's gain. Good luck to Kathleen in her new life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the courageous Iraqi people who voted in Sunday's Iraq election. My congressional district, Marin and Sonoma Counties just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, had an 89.5 percent voter turnout in the last election. Believe me, we know how important elections are to a democracy.

Sunday's election in Iraq was an important step for the people there, and it is also an important milestone for America's role in Iraq. With the elections completed, we in the United States must ensure that the people of Iraq control their own affairs as Iraq transitions toward democracy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bush and his team have not gotten much right when it comes to Iraq, and Sunday's election provides them with yet another opportunity to get back on course. Let us hope they take the smarter path this time, one that supports the Iraqi people with international cooperation to rebuild their economic and physical infrastructure.

President Bush loves to talk about democracy. While elections are absolutely necessary to establish a democracy, they are not sufficient to establish a democratic government. Democracy cannot take root in Iraq when an occupying power remains in the country. Right now, the presence of 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq is an obstacle to the prospect of an Iraqi democracy because it is a rallying point for dissatisfied Iraqis and others in the Arab world. Plus, our first responsibility is to America and our American forces, which means we must not leave them in Iraq as sitting ducks.

Last week I introduced legislation to secure Iraq for the future and ensure that America's role in Iraq actually does make America safer. My plan for Iraq is part of a larger SMART security strategy, which is a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism that will ensure America's security by relying on smarter policies. The withdrawal plan that I, with the support of over two dozen other Members, have proposed includes four components. First, develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. More than 1,400 American troops have died in the line of fire in Iraq. More than 10,000 other soldiers have been injured. These soldiers leave behind grieving parents and grandparents, spouses and children, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors all around the country whose lives will never be the same because of the war in Iraq. The best way to support our troops is to bring them home.

Second, develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure. The United States has a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made in Iraq. But that responsibility needs to be fulfilled not by our military but by humanitarian groups and companies that will help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. That does not include no-bid contracts to companies like Halliburton and Bechtel. It does ensure that the Iraqi people will benefit in the rebuilding process of their country.

Third, convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and national guard forces to ensure Iraq's security. Iraq's security problems are still the most serious cause for concern in the country, and Iraq requires an international peacekeeping force to address this problem, not the United States military. An international peacekeeping force, supported by other Arab countries, Iraq's neighbors and the United Nations will provide real legitimacy to a conflict that has flown in the face of international law from the very beginning.

Fourth, take all steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to control their internal affairs. The Iraqi people cannot truly control their own affairs until the United States military has ceded back authority to those very people. That is why it is essential for Iraq's police and national guard forces to manage Iraq's security, not the United States military.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We should not abandon Iraq. There is still a critical role for the United States in providing the developmental aid that can help create a robust civil society, build schools and water processing plants and ensure that Iraq's economic infrastructure becomes fully viable. In the end, this is the smarter option. And we must begin always taking the smarter path if we are to succeed in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, soon President Bush will unveil the details of his program to cut Social Security. We already know, however, that the President aims to dismantle a program that has been historically successful in our country and incredibly important to the well-being and financial security of women.

Women make up the majority of Social Security beneficiaries and are less likely than men to receive pensions or have retirement savings. Women are more apt to live on just Social Security. More than 24 million women receive Social Security benefits, and if these benefits were to be taken away, the result would be nearly 60 percent of senior women would be living in poverty. I shudder to think of the possible consequences of breaking apart the strongest social safety net that we have.

Social Security helps to ensure equal footing for women in retirement by using a progressive benefit formula that proportionately pays a greater benefit to those who earn less. Women earn only 77 percent on the dollar compared to their male counterparts and spend less time in the workforce, putting them at an immediate disadvantage for saving. Women who work hard providing for their families, who leave the workforce to raise children should not be penalized in later years for time outside of the workforce when they were not able to add to their private accounts. In fact, if men could have babies, I wonder what they would be doing about their shorter work lives.

Recently, some of my Republican colleagues have proposed that women, because they live longer, should receive smaller benefits than men. Imagine such an idea, that women would receive less money than men because they live longer. If anything, the longer average life span of a woman is an argument against private accounts which do not guarantee paid benefits throughout a person's life. Social Security benefits cannot be outlived and are inflation-proof. Women need to know that they can rely on this safety net to ensure that every American can live out their life with financial security.

Mr. Speaker, although this issue is important to seniors, we need to recognize that the issue affects every American. Today's workers are tomorrow's retirees. As a mother and as a grandmother, I want to make sure that a system that Americans have relied on for so many years will still be there when my children and grandchildren retire.

Social Security is a safety net that must remain in place so that we ensure the welfare of our seniors. We need, however, to encourage Americans to save for their retirement outside and above Social Security to guarantee that they will live comfortably after they are out of the workforce, especially low-wage earners, especially women.

The President's proposal to needlessly and recklessly dismantle the greatest social program in our country's history will have long-lasting and far-reaching effects.

I am deeply troubled by a proposal that would take money away from a guaranteed benefit and subject it to the roller-coaster fluctuations of the stock market. Our goal must be to ensure that Social Security is fiscally sound so that the system our families rely on is not recklessly undermined. We must keep the Social Security safety net in place without subjecting it to the whims of Wall Street. Recently, we have seen too many pension plans that people counted on for their retirements be swallowed up by corporate greed and an unstable stock market. We cannot allow the same thing to happen to our Social Security program.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the proposals that undermine the strength of our retirement system and the original intent of Social Security. This program has become a cornerstone for American workers' financial stability in their later lives, and it must not be dismantled.

If our President wants to improve the lives of retirees, he will put in place a savings plan on top of Social Security savings, acknowledging that Social Security alone is not enough to live on. We need to provide incentives so that workers at every level will save and have a savings account, an investment account above Social Security which is only a safety net.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lynn Victor of Santa Rosa, California, who retires after a remarkable 30-year career of creative and innovative work to improve the lives of low-income Americans.

Beginning at the Community Action Council of San Joaquin County in the 1970s, Lynn created innovative solutions to the needs of low-income communities. As energy costs rose, she helped to develop and then administered the nation's first home weatherization programs funded by state regulated utility companies. Based on its great success, regulated utility companies in 22 states now provide weatherization services to millions of their low-income customers around the Nation. These programs not only help disadvantaged families reduce their energy costs, they also conserve energy for America, helping toward energy self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Lynn then went on to design the Nation's first education program to help low-income and non-English speaking communities understand the deregulation of the telephone industry, enabling them to obtain and keep vital telephone service at the lowest possible cost. She designed a program to help millions of low-income people understand the privacy and security implications of new telephone technology. In this effort, she created education materials in 32 languages and Braille so that, for the first time, major telephone companies were able to reach California's huge immigrant populations through community action agencies, domestic violence shelters and other community based organizations. Once again, this program became a model for utility companies throughout the nation to understand and address the needs of their hard-to-reach customers and bring them important consumer protection information.

Lynn's work has always featured collaborations with Community Action Agencies (CAAs) our Nation's network of over 1,000 anti-poverty agencies that serve millions of low-income Americans. CAA's operate Head Start, Energy Assistance Programs, Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and other services that reach millions of disadvantaged Americans. For the past 4 years, Lynn has worked as Executive Director of the California/Nevada Community Action Partnership, helping this two state association of CAAs address the causes and symptoms of poverty in their communities.

An immigrant born in England, Lynn grew up in New Zealand, arriving in America in 1963. As a single parent of Michael, Lizabeth and Kristina Victor, Lynn had many hardships to face with no family to turn to. However, she found her new family in her community.

Mr. Speaker, as innovator, organizer and inspiration, this remarkable woman exemplifies the spirit of American immigrants who contribute so much to the vibrancy of our Nation. She is leaving her post having set a new standard for all who will follow after her, and she has put into place programs that will serve the neediest of us well in the future. Thank you, Lynn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Janie Walsh, who is retiring as the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Community Development Commission after 30 years of dedicated service to her community.

In high school, Ms. Walsh lived in Vietnam, where her interest in community service took root. She has returned periodically to implement programs sponsored by the Vietnam Veterans of California such as helping to build a school, and providing eyeglasses to those in need.

Ms. Walsh began her career in Pennsylvania as a teacher and Head Start director. Her move to California saw a change of direction in her career as she began the important work of community development. As the Redevelopment Project Manager in the City of Petaluma she began the City's housing rehabilitation program. She moved on to the Sonoma County Housing Authority as Community Development Specialist and was quickly promoted to Community Development Manager.

In 1985 the Board of Supervisors appointed her as Executive Director of the Community Development Commission where she has done an outstanding job supervising Sonoma County's Housing Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and a wide range of community development and affordable housing programs.

Ms. Walsh has also served as Senior Vice President and President of the Pacific Southwest Regional Council of the National Association of Housing Officials (NAHRO), where she worked closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on major changes in legislation and regulations that affect housing and community development agencies.

Upon retirement, Ms. Walsh and her husband, John Humphrey, are planning to move to the country and raise grapes and honeybees. She plans to spend time with her two adult sons, Philip and John, and her young grandsons. Ms. Walsh is looking forward to some international travel, particularly a trip to visit her roots in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, Janie Walsh is a woman who has made a positive impact on those around her. She has led the Community Development Commission with an attitude of compassion and respect for clients and community that permeates the entire agency. I am proud to honor her and wish her well in this new chapter of her life.

Mr. Speaker, the United States invasion and occupation of Iraq violate America's core values of honesty, responsibility, security, justice and freedom. This has been a dishonest war from the word go. The President said he had hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It turns out he did not. To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found. The President himself has officially called off the hunt.

Irresponsible behavior has been a guiding principle of the administration's behavior in leading the Nation to war in Iraq. Specifically, what has been the response of our leaders when they have been exposed for misleading the country, or for sending American men and women to their deaths without imminent threat to American security, or what has been the response for keeping our National Guard troops in Iraq for many months longer than they had agreed, or for signing off on orders that led to torture in American prisons?

Our leaders do not take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they change the subject, make excuses, or worst of all, blame an underling. Not a single administration official has resigned as a result of the mistakes that led us into this misguided and dangerous war. George Tenet received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice are up for promotion, and Donald Rumsfeld is still the Secretary of Defense, although if he traveled to Germany, he could possibly be arrested as a war criminal.

The Iraq invasion has made the Middle East a more violent and unstable place, and it has made America less secure at home by creating a terrorist breeding ground in a country that was not a haven for Islamic fundamentalists before we invaded it. It seems too ironic to be true, but after our Nation was attacked on 9/11 by Islamic fundamentalists, the Bush administration's response was to bomb and kill civilians in one of the few countries in the Middle East that was actually inhospitable to Islamic fundamentalists.

Speaking of justice, there is no justice in an operation that has caused the deaths of over 1,400 Americans and untold thousands of Iraqis for the purely ideological reason that our leader did not like their leader. Nor do we serve the cause of freedom by killing innocent people in a country that did not ask for our help, by destroying a nation's roads, schools and hospitals; and in the process we have created a playground for Islamic fundamentalists.

Freedom is very important to Americans, and I believe that the President's recent inaugural address made a mockery of the word ``freedom.'' He should ask the people of Iraq, many of whom have suffered because they lost a loved one or had a friend maimed by foreign bullets, just how free do they feel today.

Some say that we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq to keep our troops there, that we not abandon them. This belief misses the point. Our very presence in Iraq is the cause of much of the violence.

We have a moral responsibility to leave in order to stem the violence. We owe this to the people of Iraq, who have been killed by the thousands and thousands. We owe it to our troops who are sitting ducks for terrorists. That is why later today I will introduce legislation calling for a withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

In the 108th Congress I also introduced a SMART Security Resolution For the 21st Century, which calls for a sensible, multilateral American response to terrorism. Adopting a smart approach to foreign policy will help us avoid the many mistakes that have characterized the war in Iraq.

By supporting my call to bring the troops home, we will send a message to the President, one, asking that he develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq; two, develop and implement a plan for the reconstruction of Iraq's civil and economic infrastructure; three, convene an emergency meeting of Iraq's leadership, Iraq's neighbors, the United Nations, and the Arab League to create an international peacekeeping force in Iraq and to replace U.S. military forces with Iraqi police and national guard forces to ensure Iraq's security; and, finally, take all necessary steps to provide the Iraqi people the opportunity to completely control their own internal affairs.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we pursued a SMART security strategy for America, and we must do this by withdrawing our troops from Iraq. It is not too late to make the smart choice, the right choice, the choice to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the United States military to leave Iraq. Even though I was not a supporter of our role in Iraq in the first place, this is not a statement that I make lightly, nor is it a decision that I arrived at easily. But now, more than ever, I am convinced that it is the right decision.

Not all Members of Congress supported the war in Iraq, but we all have to live with its consequences. The global havoc wreaked by this war will affect the world in ways that we can only imagine. And as I said, as someone who did not support the invasion of Iraq from the outset, I still believed at first, once we had invaded them, that the United States had a moral responsibility to assist the Iraqi people as they struggled to rebuild their war-torn country.

But it has become all too clear now that the presence of the nearly 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq, rather than helping to bring about stability and political independence, is actually stifling the country's ability to develop into a flourishing democracy. That is why tomorrow I will introduce legislation calling for a withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

I believe that it is the presence in Iraq of our military that has engendered so much hatred of the United States throughout the Muslim world. We talk of holding free elections in Iraq, but we cannot hold free elections when the very country yearning to be free is under the thumb of more than 150,000 foreign troops. Democracy cannot be forced from the barrel of a gun.

Instead of issuing an arbitrary date for holding elections, why not let the Iraqi people themselves determine when they are ready to knock on democracy's door? That way, at least we

would adhere to the very democratic principles we are trying to export to the Middle East.

There are some that say we need to remain in Iraq until we are sure we have destroyed every last remnant of Iraqi's growing insurgency. The United States has faced this kind of elusive enemy before, in places like Vietnam in the 1970s and the Philippines in the early 1900s. We learned then and we should know now that this is a battle that we cannot win, because it is a battle that is not fought on a traditional battlefield.

Bullets will not win this war, because for every insurgent killed, three more sign up to fill his shoes. The suicide bombers of tomorrow are born from the bombed-out homes of Iraq's war zones of today. We have to be smarter than the insurgents if we wish to see a free and democratic Iraq.

In the end, withdrawing our forces is the smarter option. This is not a suggestion that our troops have failed. It is an acknowledgment that the military option itself has failed us. It is a recognition that we need to address the root causes of the Iraq insurgency instead of watching America become further bogged down in an unwinnable war.

In the 108th Congress I introduced a SMART Security Resolution for the 21st Century which called for a Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. Adopting this type of foreign policy will help us avoid the many mistakes that have been characterized in the war in Iraq.

SMART security calls for the United States to address the root causes of terrorism by engaging our international partners and the humanitarian community in international reconstruction and political transition processes.

SMART security calls for increased developmental aid programs, integrated with peace-building and conflict-resolution measures. By withdrawing U.S. military forces from Iraq, we can spend some of the billions of dollars which formerly paid for military operations on humanitarian projects for the Iraqi people, such as new schools for Iraq's children, water desalination plants and improved economic and civil infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, the United States must stop engaging in a reckless national security strategy, because our current path only encourages further terrorist activities. It costs Americans in our taxes, in our loss of our loved ones. It costs our international reputation, and it makes our troops sitting ducks.

It is time we pursue the SMART security strategy for America. That is the best way to secure Iraq, and it is the best way to keep America safe and secure for the future. If we do not, all we will be left with is the consequences of our current failed policies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this is the second Presidential election in a row in which serious, well-documented concerns have been raised about disenfranchisement and voting rights violations without any congressional investigation. This is the second time, and this time, it must be different.

The United States is supposed to be a beacon of freedom, the greatest democracy in the world. Yet we cannot seem to guarantee that the votes of our citizens are counted.

This past election there was everything from votes outnumbering voters in some precincts to blatant voter intimidation in other precincts. It is time that we investigate these serious violations because they are violations to our democracy.

There is an irony here, a very tragic irony. Yes, indeed, we are sacrificing American lives and billions of dollars to try to establish democracy in Iraq. Yet we cannot seem to get our own democracy in order right here at home.

This is not about which candidate won, which candidate lost on November 2. It is not about politics at all. It is about citizens and their most fundamental rights.

The recommendations put together by the minority Members of this House must be followed, and I look forward to working with them to ensure that our efforts to ensure every vote counts come together before the next election. And if we do not, why would any American bother to vote?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.